Manufacturer liable for duty payment despite compliance lapse; appeal rejection upheld without personal hearing. Relief claim denied.

The court upheld the demand for duty payment by a manufacturer of bare copper wire operating without a Central Excise license despite subsequent compliance. The rejection of the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, challenged in revision, was deemed valid even without a personal hearing. The petitioner's claim for relief under Notification No. 164/65 due to retrospective licensing was rejected, emphasizing non-compliance with duty payment requirements. The court found no error in the Central Government's decision, dismissing the revision petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Requirement of Central Excise license for manufacturing bare copper wire.
2. Calculation of duty payable by the petitioner.
3. Rejection of appeal by the Collector of Central Excise.
4. Lack of personal hearing during the revision process.
5. Entitlement to relief in duty under Notification No. 164/65.
6. Grant of license with retrospective effect and its implications.
7. Compliance with natural justice principles.
8. Error of jurisdiction in the Central Government's order.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of bare copper wire, was found operating without a Central Excise license. Despite subsequent compliance and obtaining a license with retrospective effect, the petitioner faced a demand for duty payment for the period of unauthorized operation.

2. Dispute arose regarding the calculation of duty payable by the petitioner. The Assistant Collector's rejection of the petitioner's contentions led to an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, which was dismissed due to non-compliance with deposit requirements.

3. The rejection of the appeal by the Collector was challenged through a revision before the Central Government. The petitioner argued that the appeal should have been decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-compliance with deposit rules.

4. The petitioner contended a lack of personal hearing during the revision process, citing the importance of natural justice principles. However, the court deemed the absence of a personal hearing unnecessary due to the nature of the petitioner's contentions.

5. The petitioner claimed entitlement to relief in duty under Notification No. 164/65 due to the retrospective grant of the license. The court rejected this claim, emphasizing that unauthorized manufacturing and clearance without duty payment did not warrant relief.

6. The grant of the license with retrospective effect did not confer the right to claim relief in duty under the notification. The court highlighted the petitioner's contravention of relevant laws and the subsequent compounding of the case.

7. The court found no violation of natural justice principles in the absence of a personal hearing during the revision process, as the petitioner's contentions were adequately considered in writing submissions.

8. Ultimately, the court concluded that no error of jurisdiction or apparent mistake was committed by the Central Government in dismissing the revision petition. The petition was consequently dismissed with no costs awarded.

---